What exactly is natural selection and precisely where does it occur?

Entirely fair. I disagree. Let us focus on a word he uses: There it is - the ability mentioned is a trait (caused by genes). Not all in the population share the same 'quality' of trait. Those whose trait is of higher quality will have more reproductive success than those have a lesser quality trait.Thus, sexual selection - even in Wilson's eyes causes differential reproductive success. Of course - if a mate is selected because of an acquired characteristic, then it isn't natural selection (except in the fact that the offspring might have the tendency towards liking unusual acquired characteristics or behaving in a fashion that might result in acquiring said characteristics). I don't think you need to go that far. We can either define sexual selection as being only that sexual selection which is genetically caused, or we can say that sexual selection is mostly subset of natural selection but some elements of sexual selection fall outside of natural selection. I'd say the latter is inaccurate given the way in which the phrase is used - but it would certainly be less drastic than your seperating them entirely. If it causes no change in the reproductive success amongst individuals, then it isn't sexual selection. Sexual selection isn't just about picking a mate, its about a hereditry ability to acquire a mate. Well, if for one minute we assume that wealth was the unit of hereditry we can look at this for a moment. In this universe you create there are two castes. Between these two castes there is differential reproductive success. Thus there is a selection process occurring. This is not 'reverse sexual selection' but 'caste selection'.If there is a heritable trait that either bestows the ability to get a mate, or the ability to choose a good mate based on some tangible quality (visual, auditory, sensory etc etc), then that trait and its 'alleles' or variants are in competition. The variants that do the best will be selected for, those that don't do so well will be selected against. The frequency of the variations will change as a result of this differential reproductive sucess. Of course, considering it in a traitcentric point of view is overly simplistic, but I think it is an appropriate resolution to explain the basic fundamentals of sexual selection.

Sexual selection is a sub-class of natural selection. As your quote from E.O. Wilson showed it fits the criteria but is restricted to reproductive success differences based upon the interactions of members of the population with potential mates and competitors for mates rather than with their environment in total.The other members of the population are as much a part of the environment as anything else so why do you think sexual selection is not merely a specific type of natural selection, in much the way that Modulous posited that Artificial selection could be a sub class of natural selection where the key environmental factor was the whim of human beings.What is the distinction that makes it not a from of NS?TTFN,WK

Its 'assortative mating', in this case leading to members of a class choosing members of their own class to mate with.TTFN,WK

Hi Modulous,Now I'm really convinced we're reading two different threads: I have no idea where you're getting this from. You're going to have to quote something I actually said. Now *this* sounds like a reference to something I said. We disagree about the source of confusion. Darwin certainly didn't confuse anyone when he defined natural selection in this way. I see your gene-based approach as highly confusing to neophytes, and Hoot Mon is a prime example. Did you say what you meant to say? To me this reads as if you're saying, "I didn't see where Hoot Mon said that natural selection = evolution, I only saw him refute that position, which he did cogently." I hope you didn't really mean that. If you doubt Hoot Mon said this, see Message 129 for just a single example. Hoot Mon has equated selection to evolution a number of times in this thread, and he's been corrected on it a number of times, including by me, so I don't know why you would attribute to me the misperception I've been rebutting throughout this thread. I don't see how you could have missed all this.Anyway, this is all a meta-issue. I thought you were just ignoring Hoot Mon's many mistakes while continuing a discussion that contributed to his confusion. If you instead believe that it is Hoot Mon that has a better handle on things then that's fine, I'd just request that the next time you think I'm getting things wrong that you drop me a hint.--Percy

Why would I need to quote something you said? I was talking about my impression of Hoot Mon's position. The only support I'd need is to quote relevant sections of Hoot Mon's posts that gave me that impression. Your posts would contain no directly relevant quotes other than to try and show where Hoot Mon might have come to that position.But that all seems a little odd. Do you agree with my impression of Hoot Mon's position with regards to your position? No, but he wasn't discussing possible exceptions, whereas in this thread we have to discuss those exceptions (phenotypes that genetically created to be sterile for example, or acquired characteristics). Trying to understand these exceptions using individual selection can get confusing sometimes.The way I read Darwin is that when getting into the nitty gritty, he spoke of traits being selected, rather than individuals. I did. It is not that I doubt Hoot Mon said anything, I seriously wanted to see where he said it. As I have said - he had laid out explictly that he did not think that natural selection = evolution. I provided you with direction. You provided me with Message 129. The only thing I can see that would imply that is which he later expanded on: Message 137So given he has said that natural selection isn't the totality of evolution (there is more to it, says Hoot Mon) he cannot be saying natural selection = evolution in these quotes, since he'd have contradicted himself. Since I'm charitable I'll give the benefit of the doubt and look for an alternative interpretation of his above quote. And it comes quite simply when you look at the expansion of 137.Natural selection=>evolution.That is to say - natural selection implies evolution. If a natural selection has occurred, an evolutionary event has happened. However, if evolution has occurred nothing can be said about natural selection (we cannot imply it happened).Or, as an alternative, Hoot Mon asks perhaps it is just that if natural selection occurrs, does that mean evolution will follow?I think it's quite an interesting question, it drives to the heart of question at hand. Where does natural selection occur. Is an asteroid killing lots of creatures natural selection? Or is natural selection put off until the surviving creatures manage to mate? Is natural selection positive (selecting for) or negative (selecting against) or is it both?I reminds me of some of the issues that came up in A question about evolutionI have not attributed to you this misperception. I merely stated it was a position that Hoot Mon was refuting - not that it was a position you held. I was not ignoring Hoot Mon's errors. I let others discuss them with him. Since other avenues of discourse had come to a suitable close, I turned my attention to the other issue of the thread: sexual selection. Wherein I attempt to clear up some misunderstandings that Hoot Mon is expressing.I would not dream of dropping a hint to you Percy. I respect you much too much to be so crude. I'll do better than that, as I would with anyone I respect. I'll state why I think you are wrong, or why I think there is a more correct, accurate or somehow better position to adopt as appropriate.

In the interests of clarification, may I offer this scenario for consideration:Pilgrims go off to settle in a distant land. There are 100 of them in the beginning: 50 males and 50 females, all of mating age. Now, as they are settling down each one finds a mate of his/her choice and all 50 couples get married together to build a new community. As a result of all this mating a second generation of 200 children is produced, with even numbers of boys and girls. They, too, eventually all find mates of their choosing, and each one enjoys equal reproductive success.It is happy place indeed because of all these equal opportunities. But after a few generations there are a few notable changes arising in their growing population (relative to the original, larger population). Some kind of microevolution has occurred.Then an evolutionary biologist happens to sail near the pilgrim’s colony and stops by long enough to explain to them what happened. After carefully studying this occurrence he said it was all random genetic drift, in this case the founder effect, that accounts for their microevolution.Somebody asked him, “Well, is that the same thing as natural selection?”And he replied, “No, it appears to be only random genetic drift, because during your colonial development there was always equal mating success and equal reproductive success amongst all individuals. Unless some stray genes snuck into your gene pool, or snuck out, and unless there were some heritable mutations of importance, your population has been reshaped by random genetic drift.”Other than not being a very unlikely scenaro, what would prohibit this one from occurring?”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.

Hi Hoot Mon,I wasn't replying to you, but there seems to be a difference of opinion about whether you've actually said that sexual selection is non-selective and that natural selection includes evolutionary changes. In case it helps, here's a list of your statements that support my position. All the statements I list here are either just plain wrong, or are indicative of a flawed understanding: Here Hoot Mon makes clear he still thinks natural selection includes evolutionary change: So that's the evidence I can muster in support of the position that Hoot Mon believes that natural selection involves evolutionary change, and believes that sexual selection is non-selective. I think these are pretty severe misperceptions in and of themselves, and are indicative of even more fundamental misperceptions. There's no way to know for sure what the remedy for these misperceptions is, but I continue to believe that backing up to a simpler level of understanding is the antidote.--Percy

Because just raising the point indicates that you agreed with Hoot Mon's mischaracterization of my views, else why raise it? After all, what would be the point of calling Hoot Mon's rebuttals cogent if they're in reply to things I never said and positions I've never held? It was unrecognizable as anything I've ever said in this thread. If you've been reading Hoot Mon's replies to me, but not the posts from me that he's replying to, then misinterpreting my views is easily understandable. Half the time after I'd said something like, "Natural selection does not include evolutionary change," Hoot Mon would reply with something like, "I understand you to be saying that natural selection includes evolutionary change." Sometimes it's as if English is his problem and not evolution. This is where I strongly disagree. You're addressing the exceptions to a concept that Hoot Mon doesn't yet comprehend. The way to explain verb conjugation is by starting with the general rules, not the exceptions, and it is no different with any other subject. Hoot Mon doesn't even understand the peppered moth example of natural selection, and I can only see discussing things at finer levels of complexity as worsening his bewilderment. Huh? Now it's like we're reading two different messages. In the same Message 137 that you're claiming Hoot Mon is really only saying that natural selection implies evolution, Hoot Mon actually says the exact opposite: It just doesn't get any clearer than that. That's fine, except that Hoot Mon keeps saying, "I agree with Modulous," so I've been hoping you would step back in. He agrees with you not because he understands your position, but because he believe natural selection must include evolutionary change, and he can only see that happening to genes that undergo copying during reproduction.--Percy

Darwinists cannot EXPERIMENTALLY prove natural selection and "random mutation and natural selection" as force behind evolution. Other explanations are open - one of them are Grasse's and Heikertinger's and Eimer's "internal forces", Berg's evolution governed by law -"Nomogenesis", or Goethian "Gestaltungen" supported by professor Adolf Portmann (and his conception of self-representation or "Selbstdarstellung"), spiritual forces according Broom, Davison's derepression of potentialities via meiosis...According Punnett, Heikertinger and some other scientists "natural selection" just remove extremities.

quote:

---

At most, the environment plays only a similar role with regard to organisms; IT CAN ONLY PROVOKE AND SET IN MOTION SOME POTENTIAL THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT."

---

Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 312 (his emphasis).That's an idea. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Sure we can, and have. It's phenomenally easy to show how natural selection results in population changes experimentally; it merely takes a model organism who matures and reproduces sufficiently quickly. D. melanogaster is the typical model organism. The "potential" you're referring to are the random phenotypical variation among individuals that arises via mutation. This has long been known to produce the "raw variation" that natural selection "refines" throughout the successive generations of a population.

Good question, one that I answered when I raised the issue originally.

quote:

---

There might be some issues of understanding going on, but I think it is happening both ways. That is why I stepped in - to try and explain the position Hoot Mon was trying to, but which some people seemed to be needlessly disparaging - perhaps because they didn't understand what Hoot Mon was trying to say. Since I thought I did, I thought I'd try explaining it myself to see if it helped.

---

Message 186.I have been trying to clear up a percieved misunderstanding. You think that he is saying that natural selection = evolution, and he is refuting that position so there is evidently a problem. You are claiming to also be refuting that position, not positing it. There is sa misunderstanding afoot somewhere. I am discussing it because I want to help clear it up. If you don't want my point of view on the discussion, that is fine.I have never attempted to imply that I agreed with Hoot Mon's position, and even took pains to dissipate that possible interpretation. I know that you disagree with the position I have outlined. What I am asking is if you think Hoot Mon thinks you hold this position. I am saying that I think I can interpret Hoot Mon's responses in a more sensible fashion that you seem to be doing. It's not that I agree with everything Hoot Mon has said, but I think I understand a lot of it - and it isn't all that unreasonable - though sometimes the terminology gets confusing. He seems to understand the concept quite well, he listed some of the different schools of thought on natural selection. Group selection, individual selection and gene selection. This reflects the different points of view biologists have with regards to natural selection. Gould was a strong supporter of the concept of group selection whereas Dawkins for example is a strong supporter of the view that group selection is an illusion created by the true act of selection happening at the level of genes. I don't see any confusion on this concept (the central one I came here originally to discuss) from Hoot Mon. I'll put the full quote in here: And I agree this is confusing. What Hoot Mon appears to really be saying is that when natural selection occurs then evolution has occurred. He has taken great pains to also state that evolution can occur with no natural selection taking place. So obviously he does not think the terms evolution and natural selection are interchangeable. Mathematically he is not saying 'natural selection = evolution' because he is not saying 'evolution = natural selection' Since the relationship is one way he is actualyl saying natural selection=>evolution.That is to say if natural evolution is true (has occurred) then evolution is true (has occurred. However, if evolution has occurred then natural selection has not necessarily occurred. I'm taking into account everything Hoot Mon is saying, rather than just isolated statements. It seems contradictory, but I feel that is because of the ambiguity of the language Hoot Mon is using, which is something he should probably work on. Then Hoot Mon agrees with me. Though rather than 'include' I'd say that natural selection implies evolutionary change.

Excellent, thanks for that.

A process that initiates another process cannot be said to include that process. I throw the bowling ball down the alley, pins fall down. But the act of throwing the bowling ball down the alley doesn't include the event of pins falling down.Natural selection is a process that can result in evolutionary change, but it is not one that includes evolutionary change. Evolutionary change is the "descent with modification" part of evolution. Hoot Mon only agrees with you if "includes" is a synonym for "implies", but it isn't so he doesn't, and "implies" is a rather strained interpretation, not a word Hoot Mon actually used.Hoot Mon has command of a lot of facts, but as in an earlier thread where he kept pushing Prigogine as somehow relevant to the topic, he doesn't really understand them. It looks to me like you're assuming Hoot Mon possesses understanding based upon his ability to drop names and facts, and then you're taking vague meaningless phrases (such as "if one views NS in an active context") as modifying his misstatements into reasonable statements that agree with you. I don't get it.Try looking at it another way. While you find the Darwinian definition of natural selection insufficiently precise for modern understanding, you still understand the principle when couched in those terms. Hoot Mon doesn't understand it. Could someone who agrees with and understands your perspective really not understand the far more simple Darwinian definition? Not get the obvious analogy between natural and artificial selection? Seems a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?Well, enough of the meta-discussion. I know what your position is now. Your rationale makes no sense to me, and I'm really perplexed by your word-play (includes=implies, natural=artificial), but at least I know what your position is, so I won't be pestering you for help explaining natural selection to Hoot Mon anymore.--Percy

That not proper debating, Percy, it's just opinionated exhaust. You need to explain exactly what is wrong with my statements, one by one. I happen think that you are wrong on several important points, too, but I bring more to the table than just unsupported accusations. I have already said in Message 181 that: If there is anything wrong with that statement is that I might have said more accurately: "...to a microevolutionary event."I like to think that the occurrence of microevolution can be attributed to causal mechanisms. And I think it is fair to say that many observations of microevolution can be attributed to natural selection. I agree that not all disturbances in the evenness in reproductive success in a population, or any change in its allele frequencies, will lead to an microevolutionary event. Probably only a few do. But I also think it is fair to say that many observations of microevolution can be attributed to other drivers besides natural selection, working alone or in combination.”HM

Going back to those messages, I see that almost all of them do have responses explaining your errors, a lot of them by Percy himself. And a lot of those messages have no reply from you.I recognize that you're one against many, and it's not fair to expect you to reply to everything, but there's a difference between replying to one message that's the best representative of a point several are making; and making it clear that your opponents are on a rotating schedule of being completely ignored. (Apparently it's my turn today.) We've been explaining your errors for 200 posts now. Is there some reason it isn't sinking in?